1821817 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 2908

1821817 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2908 (21 June 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Mahalingam Sutharshan (MARN: 0961664)

CASE NUMBER:  1821817

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Bangladesh

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:21 June 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 21 June 2023 at 12:44pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Bangladesh – Tanchangya ethnicity – Buddhist religion – imputed political opinion – protest activity outside of Bangladesh – questioned at the airport – membership of religious and/or Jumma organisations – claimed land dispute – father’s death and disappearance – father’s membership of Shantibahini – country information – Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) and Indigenous People – Buddhists and other religious minorities – Security and Islamic Extremism – internal relocation – urban area, such as Dhaka – right to peaceful protest – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 91R, 91S
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the Department) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for the visa on 17 June 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 25 July 2018.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 May 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.

   RELEVANT LAW

5. The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a Protection visa of the same class.

   Refugee criterion

6. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a Protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

7. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

8. Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

9. There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

10. Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s 91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s 91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s 91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s 91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

11. Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

12. Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s 91R(1)(a) of the Act.

13. Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

14. In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

15. Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary protection criterion

16. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

17. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.

18. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s 36(2B) of the Act.

    Mandatory considerations

19. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

20. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.

21. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Background and country information

    The Chittagong Hill Tracts and Indigenous People

22. The Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) is a hilly region within the Chittagong Division.  The CHT consists of three districts: Khagrachari, Rangamati and Bandarban.  The CHT is distinct from the district of Chittagong which is another district in the Chittagong Division and the city of Chittagong which is within the district of Chittagong.

23. Indigenous people live in different parts of Bangladesh, about a third of them in the CHT.  Indigenous groups are diverse but are generally visibly distinct from other Bangladeshis with their own dress, culture and language.  Indigenous people, like many people who live in remote areas, sometimes move to cities like Dhaka to find work or access services.  In cities, they sometimes experience discrimination and vilification, such as people yelling insults at them in the street or people refusing to share food or drinks, cups, teapots or other utensils, or refusing to sit with them in waiting areas for example.  DFAT assesses that indigenous people who move to big cities experience a moderate risk of societal discrimination and official discrimination in the form of not being able to access government services in their language.[1]

    [1] DFAT Country Information Report, Bangladesh, 30 November 2022 (‘DFAT Report 2022’).

24. Various indigenous people live in the CHT in the southeast of the country.  Most are Buddhist and many speak Bengali.   A low-level insurgency ran in the CHT from 1977 until 1997, fuelled by local dissatisfaction over marginalisation and displacement resulting from high levels of transmigration of Bengali settlers from other parts of Bangladesh into the CHT.  The signing of the CHT Peace Accord between the government and tribal representatives in 1997 formally ended the insurgency with the undertakings by government to ensure indigenous representation and resolve land disputes.  Despite the Accord, land disputes persist and indigenous people claim that Bengali settlers still practice ‘land grabbing’.  Land is ‘grabbed’ or stolen by physical force or by use of false documents claiming ownership.  The only possible recourse is the courts, which are often corrupt, inaccessible to the illiterate and can take decades to reach a verdict.  The government has set up dispute resolution mechanisms that do not involve the courts, but indigenous people claim that these are not effective and do not result in land being returned.  In some cases, indigenous people allege that police, security forces and other government authorities have been complicit in land grabbing or have grabbed it for themselves, sometimes using lethal force.   DFAT assesses that indigenous people in the CHT face a moderate risk of official discrimination: they are unable to move freely, to elect their own representatives, or to access justice in cases of land appropriation or physical violence.  They face a moderate risk of societal discrimination in the form of land appropriation and physical violence by settlers.[2]

    [2] Above n 1 at 3.10—3.13.

25. Other sources report that CHT indigenous people live under military occupation and indigenous activists continue to experience threats of arrest, forced disappearance and violence from both state and non-state actors.[3]  The 1997 CHT Peace Accord is yet to be fully implemented as successive governments have not delivered fully on the core provisions of the Accord.[4]  A lack of resolution of issues over land ownership remains an impediment to the implementation of the 1997 Peace Accord.[5]  Lack of documentation proving ownership of land (land titles) has led, in many cases, to land disputes and allegations of land grabbing.[6] Notably, no land disputes have been resolved in the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021,[7] and not one of the more than 20,000 registered land disputes has been resolved.[8] Indigenous women and girls have reportedly been subjected to sexual violence in connection with incidents of land grabbing.[9]

    [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2020 Events of 2019’ 14 January 2020.

    [4] UCA News, ‘Activists call for justice on Bangladesh’s restive hills’ (online 3 December 2021) < The Daily Star, ’CHT Accord: 22 years of promises not kept’ (online 2 December 2019) < ‘Country Policy and Information Note – Bangladesh Religious minorities and atheists’, UK Home Office, 28 October 2018 (‘UK Report 2018’).

    [7] Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 – Bangladesh, US Department of State.

    [8] International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), ‘Lessons from the Implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord’ (online 20 October 2021) < International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, ‘Fact Sheet: Violence against Indigenous women and girls in Bangladesh’ (online 30 November 2021) < and other religious minorities

26. Buddhists are a small minority in Bangladesh.  They are mostly indigenous and live in the CHT.  Muslim Bengali settlers and CHT indigenous groups of minority religion clash frequently, especially in relation to land ownership and usage.  While some of these disputes take on religious or racial overtones, religion and race are not the main factors; rather, the main factor is land.  Buddhists may experience social discrimination.  Buddhists are generally able to receive instruction in their faith as part of the school curriculum, but teachers are not necessarily Buddhist.  Sources told DFAT that Buddhists can generally access health care and there are some junior Buddhist doctors.  Sources also told DFAT that minorities, including Buddhists, sometimes need to pay more than others in bribes in order to access services.[10]

    [10] Above n 1 at 3.50—3.51.

27. Large-scale communal violence is possible and some Buddhists fear such violence.  The anti-Hindu violence in 2021 also affected some Buddhist temples.  Violence notably occurred in 2012 when Islamists razed Buddhist homes in the Cox’s Bazar district and temples after a false Facebook post implicated Buddhists in alleged desecration of a Quran.  DFAT is not aware of more recent similar incidents against Buddhists, but notes a similar incident targeting Hindus, suggesting that anti-religious minority violence based on false accusations of blasphemy remains a possibility. DFAT assesses that Buddhists face a moderate risk of societal violence in the form of occasional localised incidents and a moderate risk of societal discrimination, but it is difficult to distinguish between religious and racial discrimination, especially for Buddhists who live in the CHT.

28. DFAT’s 2019 report notes that following the 2012 incident in Cox’s Bazar the police mounted an effective response which prevented further violence and the government deployed additional police in the Buddhist areas in Cox’s Bazar to prevent a repeat of the Islamist protests that targeted Buddhists in 2012.[11]

    [11] DFAT Country Information Report, Bangladesh, 22 August 2019 at 3.53 (‘DFAT Report 2019’).

29. Other sources report that religious minorities have been targeted sporadically, with Buddhists and Hindu’s particularly targeted.  In 2019 religious minorities across the country were attacked on several occasions with their places of worship torched and effigies vandalised.[12]  In 2020, there were attacks on homes and places of worship belonging to religious minorities and plans made to evict minorities and build hotels in their settlements.[13] In 2021 citizens belonging to ethnic minority communities were killed and there were attacks and looting of houses, businesses and places of worship belonging to religious minority groups, and such incidents continue to occur.[14]

    [12] Annual Human Rights Report 2019, Bangladesh, Odhikar, 8 February 2020.

    [13] Annual Human Rights Report 2020, Bangladesh, Odhikar, 25 January 2021.

    [14] Annual Human Rights Report 2021, Bangladesh, Odhikar, 31 January 2022.

30. A 2022 UK Home Office report[15] states that in general, Buddhists are able to express and practice their faith throughout Bangladesh and there is little evidence to suggest that Buddhists in Bangladesh face state discrimination.  The report further notes that in general the level of societal treatment of Buddhists is not sufficiently serious by its nature and/or repetition or by an accumulation of various measures to amount to persecution or serious harm. On the question of state protection, the report states that in recent years, there have been some examples of local administrative and police officials demonstrating a general apathy toward promoting religious tolerance, strengthening protections for religious minorities, properly investigating crimes and ensuring accountability for attacks against religious minorities.  Anti-minority bias and corruption amount local officials is compounded by issues of low capacity that continue to plague law enforcement institutions in many parts of the country.  However, the Bangladeshi authorities have been shown to respond to outbreaks of violence, protect victims, investigate and convict those responsible for abuses against the largest religious minorities, for example, including during a spate of Islamist attacks against religious minorities throughout Bangladesh between 2013-2016 and after a wave of attacks against Hindus during the Durga Puja festival in October 2021.  In November 2020, police responded to the murder of a man wrongly accused of desecrating the Quran by arresting 49 individuals in relation to the killing and mob violence that occurred, although the progress of the case in unknown.

    [15] Country policy and information note: religious minorities and atheists, Bangladesh, March 2022.

    Security and Islamic Extremism

31. Regarding the security situation, DFAT[16] reports that security threats are largely centred around politically motivated violence, including violent clashes between rival groups, especially ahead of elections.  There is a risk of violence at political rallies.  Successive Bangladeshi governments have faced the challenge of dealing with extremist groups who plan or execute violence against a wide range of government and civilian targets.  Authorities have taken a hard-line approach in responding to these attacks which has included proscribing key militant groups and arresting hundreds of militants.  Human rights groups have reported that security operations against militant groups have resulted in high numbers of extrajudicial killings.  Between January 2013 and mid-2016, domestic militants (including some claiming allegiance with Islamic State (IS)) conducted a wave of attacks across the country.  The most notable was the July 2016 Holey Bakery attack in which dozens of people were taken hostage in a bakery in Dhaka that was popular with foreigners.  Twenty hostages and two police officers were killed.  Authorities launched a crackdown on militants after the Holey Bakery attack and no attacks of the same scale have been reported since.  While the incidence of terrorist attacks by violent extremists has decreased in recent years, the risk of violence remains.

    [16] Above n 1 at 2.33—2.35.

1. Other sources indicate that militant Islamist attacks targeting religious minorities have decreased since mid-2016 but the risk of further attacks exists.  The IS maintains its presence in Bangladesh through a front that renewed its allegiance to the new IS leader in November 2019.[17]  There was a small increase in terrorist activity in 2019 involving six attacks by IS, five of whom targeted the police although there were no deaths.[18]  In November 2019, the government had a national Antiterrorism Unit operational authority to combat terrorism.[19]  Bangladesh experienced a decrease in terrorist activity in 2020, accompanied by an increase in terrorism-related investigations and arrests.[20]  On 6 October 2022, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) arrested seven members of a new militant organisation, Jama’atul Ansar Fil Hindal Sharqiya, which brings together leaders and workers of several Islamist militant groups including the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh 9JMB), Ansar al-Islam (AAI) and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami Bangladesh (HUJI-B).[21]

   [17] Islamic States Rejig and Resurgence in South Asai – Analysis, Eurasia Review, 25 May 2020.

   [18] Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Bangladesh, USDOS, 24 June 2020.

   [19] Ibid.

   [20] Country Reports on Terrorism 2020, Bangladesh, USDOS, 16 December 2021.

   [21] The Diplomat, ‘New Islamist Militant Outfit Emerges in Bangladesh’ (online 12 October 2022) < and evidence

2. The applicant provided the following information in his application for a Protection visa on 17 June 2014.

3. The applicant is from the Rangamati province in Bangladesh. He is a fluent speaker, writer, and reader of Bengali. He is a speaker of Sinhala and Tanchangya languages too. He is from the Tanchangya ethnicity. He identifies as Buddhist. He completed university studies in [Country 1] in and in [City 1]. He lived in Bangladesh until 2001. He then resided in [Country 1] until 2013. The returned to Bangladesh from February to August 2013. He later resided in [City 1] from September 2013 to May 2014. He arrived in Australia as the holder of a Visitor visa for the purpose of [attending a] conference which was to take place [date] to [date] May 2014.

   Applicant’s claims for Protection

4. In a statutory declaration dated 19 July 2018, the applicant provided a chronology of events and claims of protection.

5. The applicant claimed he would face harm due to the following reasons:

   a.due to his ethnicity as Tanchangya;

   b.due to his religious background as a Buddhist;.

   c.due to his imputed or perceived political opinion, his affiliation to advocate for the rights of the indigenous people in CHT; and

   d.due to his view seeking justice for the rape incident of his mother and the abduction of his father.

6. The applicant claimed that he would be easily identified as a person from Indigenous background in Bangladesh due to following reasons:

   a.his Bengali accent;

   b.his Identity card;

   c.his physical appearance.

7. The applicant claimed he is an indigenous member of the CHT of Bangladesh.

8. He speaks Chakma fluently and in addition to English, he can also speak Bengali, Sinhala, and little Japanese.

9. His name at birth was [Name 1].

10. He has [number] sisters and one brother.  His elder sister was raped and later killed herself.

11. His father was an active member of the Shantibahini, the armed wing of the PCJSS (Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samghati Samiti) a political association of the Jumma people of the CHT. 

12. Originally, his family lived in the town of [Town 1] in the CHT.  Following a massacre of indigenous people by Muslim settlers in 1980, his family fled to a remote village called [Village 1] where he was born.

13. In 1996, the applicant’s mother was raped by the Army and his grandfather was left to die from head-injuries from a gun-knock and excessive loss of blood.

14. The applicant’s family were of extremely limited resources, so the applicant farmed the land and contributed towards the sustenance of the family.

15. In 2000, the applicant was taken by a Humanitarian Organization from [Country 1] with the name “[Organisation 1]” where he completed education in 2004 and 2006. He was later admitted to [University 1] in [Country 1] for a Bachelor degree from 2007 to 2012. The applicant claimed he was a good student.

16. The applicant claimed that he, as a small Buddhist monk, attended many protests against the injustice and human rights violations exercised in the CHT of Bangladesh by the Bengali settlers to innocent indigenous Jumma people of the CHT. One such protest was a silent procession in [Country 1] against the barbarous attacks on innocent Jumma people at Mahalchari on 26th August 2003.

17. The applicant claimed that after he entered [University 1] in February 2007, he became actively involved in the organization called "[Organisation 2]’’, a very strong indigenous Jumma Buddhist Monk organization studying at various universities and educational institutions in [Country 1].

18. On 15 July 2009, the applicant’s elder sister was raped by Bengali boys. She later committed suicide. The applicant claimed that she alone was coming home from the evening market around 4PM after she sold some spinach with the applicant’s younger sister. At that time of rape, she had just reached her [age] years of age and was engaged to a village boy. After the sad incident although she survived, in shame she committed suicide the following day. The applicant claimed he visited his family in the CHT funded by the institute only to attend his sister’s funeral [in] July 2009.

19. The applicant claimed that he intended to seek justice for his sister, to report the events but was discouraged to learn from the villagers that authorities did nothing to protect the CHT peoples, their lands and properties.

20. The applicant claimed he attended two main protests with [Organisation 2]:

    a.The first demonstration was from [date] to [date] February 2010, the applicant was part of a protest against the human rights violation in the CHT in front of the Bangladesh High Commission in [Country 1]. It was a street demonstration which was followed by a memorandum to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh through the High Commission of Bangladesh in [Country 1], regarding the violation of human rights in the CHT on the innocent indigenous Jumma peoples on the 3 March 2010.

    b.The second demonstration, the applicant claimed, took place after the 29 September 2012 attacks at the Buddhist people at Ramu in the Cox’s Bazar Region. The applicant claimed he participated at a protest in front of the High Commission of Bangladesh in [Country 1].

21. The applicant claimed that around 2010, he applied for a Master [degree] Course at [University 2] of [City 1].

22. After finishing his first degree he felt he ought to do something in memory of his elder sister and he was also concerned to get his family’s land registered to avoid it being grabbed by [Mr A] who was making moves in that direction. 

23. On his way back home at the Dhaka airport he was stopped and interrogated for about five hours. On 25 February 2013, the applicant’s father endorsed a life insurance policy to the applicant, under the applicant’s name after they learnt of his airport incident.

24. [In] May 2013, the applicant escaped physical harm at the Buddhist Wesak Festival. The applicant claimed that he saw how others were attacked and bled and taken to the [specified] hospital.

25. When back in Bangladesh, he attempted to get the family’s land registered.  He learnt that it would take 3 months to be registered and that he would be required to pay a 30,000 Taka bribe.  His family were poor so it was taking longer to earn the money.

26. On [date] June 2013, his father was abducted.  [One day later in] June 2013, the applicant filed a police report on the abduction of his father but he received no news. The applicant claimed that the Bangladesh Army, the Police and the Bengali settler leaders and [Mr A] were responsible for his father’s death.  [Mr A] was attempting to acquire his family’s land at the time.

27. After that incident, the applicant claimed that he received threats and physical harassment from [Mr A] over the land and his attempts to register it in his family’s name.  One day when travelling by taxi to arrange the registration of his land he was stopped by [Mr A] and his friends, slapped, insulted and disrobed of his Buddhist attire and threatened with death if he continued to pursue the legal right to the land.  The applicant claimed that because of these threats affecting his physical and mental state he secluded himself at the [named] Buddhist Monastery, [named Upazila], Rangamati, and the CHT.

28. At around this time, the applicant was selected for a Master [degree] at [University 2] for the 2013/2014 year. The applicant claimed that he left for [City 1] in September 2013. Later he was told his family had to move to his uncle’s home because they were dispossessed of their land by [Mr A].

29. While being in [City 1], the applicant decided to apply to participate at [a conference] in Melbourne at the [specified] University. That he arrived in Australia [in] May 2014 for the conference.

30. The applicant claimed that in Australia he felt safe and decided to apply for a Protection visa in Sydney.

31. The applicant claimed that his return back to Bangladesh is unsafe, dangerous and risky. That the Bangladesh government has recognised his name and activities for the Indigenous people's rights which means it is “not patriotic” for the country and his return to the country will cause him significant harm. That [Mr A] and his father’s murderers will harm the applicant and that the authorities in Bangladesh would not protect him but will try to harm him as they are against the ethnic equality and against unity in diversity.

32. The applicant claimed that in 2015 and in 2018, he attended protests to expose human rights violations perpetrated against indigenous people in Bangladesh.

    Evidence before the Department

33. The Tribunal has before the Department file which contains the following evidence relevant to the applicant’s claims:

    a.Colour photographs depicting participation in protests and related activities;

    b.Applicant’s statutory declaration dated 19 July 2018;

    c.Applicant’s letter to the Department dated 10 July 2017 where the applicant addressed concerns about the damages caused to the Jumma villages in 2017. The applicant enclosed two photographs showing the damage to the Jumma villages;

    d.Applicant’s letter to the Department dated 10 December 2014 where he refers to a protest and a memorandum addressed to the Prime Minister via the High Commission of Bangladesh in [Country 1].  He states that this is why he was detained at the airport in Dhaka in 2013.  He further states that his father was active in the PCJSS even after the peace accord of 2 December 1997.  The applicant states that he was a target of Somo Odhikar Andolon, the Bengali settler organisation because he is an international monk who went to other Buddhist countries not only for religious purposes but also to make the situation in the CHT known and to seek assistance.  He further states that [Mr A] will always target him even if he has succeeded in taking his family’s land.  He states that [Mr A] is related to his father’s abduction and he knows that he knows it.  He will also remain concerned that he might try to take the land back.

    e.Applicant’s letter to the Department dated 18 December 2014 where the applicant recounts his family’s suffering.  In this letter he also states that he was appointed as an executive committee member of [Organisation 2] in [Country 1].  He further states that his mother informed him that [Mr A] had been to their uncle’s house where his family had taken shelter to inquire about his whereabouts;

    f.Applicant’s application forms for a Protection visa dated 17 June 2014;

    g.Non-certified English translation of the applicant’s birth certificate;

    h.Non-certified English translation of the applicant’s 2004 and 2006 academic transcript from [Country 1] educational institute;

    i.Student ID card from [University 2];

    j.[City 1]’s student visa for the applicant; and

    k.Copy of biodata page of the applicant’s foreign passport.

    Protection interview

34. The applicant attended two interviews with the Department.

35. The Tribunal had access to the recordings of both interviews. A summary of main discussion points is as follows.

    The first interview

36. The applicant consented to holding the interview in English, without an interpreter. The applicant’s representative stated that the applicant had applied for a USA visa when he was in [Country 1].

37. The applicant claimed that he feared returning to Bangladesh because he would be harassed by [Mr A], a land grabber who forcibly took the applicant’s family’s land.

38. The applicant claimed that he would also be harassed because he was involved in protests while living in [Country 1]. He said that he participated in three or four protests between 2001 and 2013.

39. The applicant claimed that he also feared being detained at the airport as he was in 2013.  He said that he believed he was detained at the airport for five hours because he participated in a protest in 2012 and the authorities had his name on a list. The applicant confirmed that this was a sub-claim of his main claim of being fearful of harm because of involvement in protests.

40. The applicant claimed he would be racially harassed.

41. The applicant claimed that he originally came to Australia because he was afraid of returning to Bangladesh after completing his studies. He said that he came to Australia to present at a conference and to apply for protection. He claimed that he went to [Country 1] because he was selected to study Buddhism in that country. He completed his university degree in [Country 1]. He stated that he went to [City 1] to study his master studies.

42. The applicant was asked why he spent 13 years outside Bangladesh and did not apply for protection. He was also asked why he returned to Bangladesh in 2013 if he knew that he had protested against the Bangladeshi government and was wanted by the authorities. The applicant claimed that he did not know that he was wanted by the government in 2013 after he participated in the 2012 protest against human rights violations.  

43. The applicant stated that he returned to Bangladesh twice between 2000 and 2013.

44. The interview concluded prematurely due to concerns raised about the absence of an interpreter.

    The second interview

45. Regarding the applicant’s trips to and from Bangladesh following his departure to [Country 1], the applicant confirmed that he visited Bangladesh twice. Once when he finished his studies in 2006 (for one month) and then to attend his sister’s funeral in 2009 (September for about two weeks).

46. Regarding the claimed incident at the Dhaka airport, the applicant stated that in February 2013 he was detained for five hours (not five years as claimed in his written statement) at the Dhaka airport. He said that at customs his passport was checked and he was asked to attend an interview.  He said that he was told that they had found out he had protested against the Bangladesh authorities. He said the authorities wanted to know why he was protesting and he was asked about his political activities. The applicant said that he was asked who else was involved in the protests. He said he was warned about continuing his political activities in other countries.

47. Regarding the applicant’s political activities, he confirmed that he was not involved in political activities in Australia. He said that in 2006, 2010 and 2012 he was involved in CHT protests. The applicant stated that in March 2010 he assumed responsibility for informing the media about protests being organised against human rights violations and massacres. The applicant said that he spoke to many media organisation, he spoke to a [Country 1] TV channel and other media he could not remember.

48. Regarding the applicant’s employment in Australia and his religious practice while in Australia, the applicant confirmed that he worked as a [Occupation 1] in Australia.  He said that he had no other jobs prior to coming to Australia either in Bangladesh or [Country 1]. The applicant confirmed he was ordained as a Buddhist monk. He said that he did not continue to practise as a Buddhist monk in Australia because he needed to find accommodation and he could not congregate with others from his sect in Australia because they would not support him in his Protection visa application.

49. Regarding the claimed land dispute, the applicant said that he attended the Land Register Commissioner who said that he had to bribe 30,000 Taka to register his land. His family was poor and took time to gather the money. The applicant stated that his family land was taken by [Mr A] using false documents. He stated that corrupt army officers supported land grabbers such as [Mr A]. The applicant stated that [Mr A] built a [business] where the applicant’s family lived, on the plains.

50. The applicant stated that [Mr A] learned about his effort to register his land so one day when the applicant was going into town [Mr A] intercepted the taxi he was travelling in. The applicant said that [Mr A] disrobed him and threatened the applicant. He also said that [Mr A] had been harassing 12 other families about their lands.

51. Regarding the claimed abduction of his father, the applicant said that his father was involved in post-peace militant activities ([specified]) after the 1998 peace accord. He said that his father was in hiding from the army because he held a political opinion. The applicant said that his father was at the market at the time he was abducted and that he was taken away in a van by an armed group of Bengali settlers.  He said that he learnt this from a friend. He said he was at the monastery hiding when his father was abducted.

52. Regarding the possibility of relocation, the applicant said that the people who are after him could find him anywhere in Bangladesh.

53. The applicant claimed that he would be racially and religiously discriminated against because he is an indigenous person. That people want to relocate to the areas where he, his family and indigenous people live. That indigenous people are marginalised economically and fear harassment from Bengali people. The applicant claimed that he could not find a job in Bangladesh in spite of him being able to speak English and being smart.

    Delegate’s decision

54. After consideration of the claims, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant would face harm in Bangladesh at the hands of Bengali people, or because of his imputed political opinion, his ethnicity; or at the hands of a [Mr A] over a land dispute.

    Evidence before the Tribunal

55. The Tribunal file contains copy of the review application form dated 27 July 2018, a copy of the delegate’s decision record, and submissions from the applicant as listed below.

    Statutory declaration from the applicant dated 1 May 2023

56. The applicant claims that in the absence of evidence to support his claim that his family land was taken away by Muslim people, the Tribunal should consider international media reports about land grabbing issues experienced by religious minorities in Bangladesh.

57. The applicant argues that the below mentioned police report supports his claim about his father having been abducted by Muslim people.

58. The applicant claims that he, like many other religious minority people in Bangladesh, suffers Islamic extremism and targeting from Muslim Bengali peoples who invade their land. He claims that there are attempts to forcibly convert people to Islam and to assimilate to Bengali ways.

59. The applicant claims that there is growing extremism in Bangladesh and that the infiltration of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh has added to this problem.  He further states that the security and political situation is volatile.

1. The applicant claims that he is a refugee as he will be targeted and killed in Bangladesh as he is part of a religious minority.  

2. He claims that he continues to engage in religious activities in Australia and that he intends to continue to seek justice.

   Naati English translation of general diary report dated [in] June 2013 made by the applicant at [specified] police station

3. The report indicates the applicant lodged a complaint that his father was abducted from a place called [Location 1] on [date] June 2013 at around 4pm.  The applicant indicated that he believes his father was abducted by a [Mr A] and his followers with the goal of killing him and forcibly taking the applicant’s family land.

   Letter from [Organisation 3] Australia undated

4. The letter states that the applicant has been a well-regarded member of the community because of his participation in strengthening the association in Australia since his arrival in May 2014. The applicant is claimed to have participated in the Canberra protest against the attack on the Jumma’s in Longudu on [date] June 2017. The applicant is also claimed to have participated in a protest against women abuse and violence in the CHT Jummas on [date] February 2018. The applicant is claimed to also be one of the signatories of a memorandum presented to the Bangladeshi Prime Minister and other Australian government departments.

   Certificate no [number] dated [in] June 2013

5. The certificate states the applicant is an indigenous hill person and permanent resident of the district.

   Representative submissions dated 4 May 2023

6. It is submitted that the applicant is a member of the Jumma indigenous community, is identifiable as a Buddhist person in an Islamic country. It is submitted that indigenous people are victims of government efforts to assimilate them and live with Islamic and Bengali mindsets. It is further submitted that the Indigenous peoples in the CHT are some of the most politically marginalized and socioeconomically disadvantaged peoples in Bangladesh.

7. It is argued that the applicant, if returned to Bangladesh, would suffer severe racial discrimination, and that he would suffer attacks as he is part of a religious minority.  It is submitted that human rights abuses and attacks against religious minorities have escalated in recent times in Bangladesh and such attacks are linked to Islamic extremism following the collapse of Afghanistan.

8. The representative cited various country information sources regarding attacks on indigenous people and religious minorities.  Information is also referenced about increasing Islamic extremism in Bangladesh.  A number of reports are attached to the submission.

   Photographic evidence

9. The applicant provided copies of photographs depicting him attending religious activities in Australia.

   Tribunal hearing

100.   The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 May 2023 to give oral evidence and present arguments for his case.

101.   A summary of his oral evidence is as follows:

102.   The applicant advised the Tribunal that his name is [the applicant].  He stated that he only has one name.  He said that he was born in [Village 1] in Rangamati in the CHT area of Bangladesh.  He stated that he is a citizen of Bangladesh and does not have the right to enter or reside in any other country.

103.   The applicant stated that his family were forced to move locations in the past but he said they settled in his birth village.  He said they held no title to the land on which they lived which is a common occurrence in the CHT where land is acquired through inheritance and in keeping with cultural norms.

104.   The applicant advised the Tribunal that his father was abducted in June 2013 and as he has never been seen again they presume he is dead.  He said that his father was a member of Shantibahini, the armed wing of the PCJSS (Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samghati Samiti) a political association of the Jumma people.  He said that one day his father went to the market and never returned.  He said that his family had been having problems with a [Mr A] regarding ownership of their land.  He said they presume that he must have had something to do with his father’s disappearance.  He added that his father’s membership of Shantibahini could also have been a contributing factor.

105.   The applicant stated that at the time he was also experiencing some problems and didn’t really have a fixed abode.  He said that he learned about his father’s disappearance from some senior citizens in the area.

106.   The applicant stated that he went to the police station the day after his father’s disappearance to lodge a general diary report.  He said that [Mr A] is a powerful person and well connected and there was nothing they could expect would come from the police report.

107.   The applicant advised that after arriving in Australia he realised it would be useful to have a copy of the general diary report and so he asked his sister to go to the police station to get a copy.  He said she managed to do so and sent the report to him.  He said he remembers submitting some documents to the Department by post but when he attended his interview it became apparent that those documents had gone missing.  He said that the general diary report which was submitted to the Tribunal is a second copy which his sister obtained for him.

108.   The Tribunal discussed with the applicant its concern about the apparent late introduction of the general diary report and noted that its form was questionable.  In particular, the Tribunal noted that it is a typed or handwritten statement on a blank page and could easily have been produced by anybody.  The applicant agreed with the Tribunal’s observation and stated it was reasonable for the Tribunal to question the document in light of the ease with which fraudulent documents can be obtained in Bangladesh.

109.   The applicant advised the Tribunal that his sister was raped in 2009.  He said that his mother, brother and remaining sister moved to live with his maternal uncle in [location] after their land was stolen by [Mr A].  He said they moved there about 3 weeks after he lodged the general diary report.  He confirmed he was still in Bangladesh at the time.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that he previously claimed that his family moved from their land after he had travelled to [City 1] in August 2013.  He responded that his oral evidence is his recollection of what occurred.

110.   The applicant advised the Tribunal that he is in regular contact with his sister and has occasional contact with his mother.  He said his sister recently completed year [level] and his brother is in either year [level] or [level].  He said his mother does some occasional field work or domestic work for family and friends.  He said that he tries to support his family financially when he can.

111.   The applicant stated that he went to [Country 1] in around 2001 to study.  He said he completed his O level and A level examinations and then went to university where he completed a degree in Buddhism and Pali.  He said he lived in [Country 1] until either February or March 2013 and that during his years there he returned to Bangladesh twice. 

112.   The applicant stated that after he finished his studies he returned to Bangladesh as his visa was expiring. 

113.   The applicant stated that he remained in Bangladesh until 30 August 2013 when he travelled to [City 1] to complete a Masters in Buddhist studies.

114.   The applicant stated that while he was in [Country 1] he became involved with a Buddhist organisation – [Organisation 2] in around 2006 or 2007.  He said the organisation was concerned about the rights of Buddhists in the CHT area.  He said the main branch of [Organisation 2] is in the CHT.   While involved with this organisation he participated in peaceful protests against human rights violations of indigenous people in the CHT.  He said he attended two prominent protests in [Country 1] in around 2008 and 2010 but also attended other protests.  He said he was a participant in those events and helped make placards and was involved in handing over a memorandum to the Bangladesh Embassy in [Country 1].  He said that they demanded that the terms of the Peace Accord should be honoured and called for infrastructure development in the CHT and an end to mistreatment of women and the cessation of communal violence.  He said this was the extent of his protest activity in [Country 1].

115.   The applicant stated that when he returned to Bangladesh in 2013, he was stopped by officials and questioned for around 4-5 hours about his activities in [Country 1].   He said he does not know how the authorities came to know about his activism.  He said that it is possible that his attendance at the Bangladesh Embassy in [Country 1] was captured on video and this is why he was blacklisted.

116.   The applicant confirmed that he was not physically assaulted during the interrogation, but he was warned not to repeat his protest activities and he detected some racial discrimination.  He confirmed that this type of interrogation was not repeated again while he was in Bangladesh.

117.   The applicant confirmed that he renewed his passport following this incident.  He said that he paid a broker to make the arrangements and on top of that he was required to pay a bribe to facilitate the processing of his passport.  When the Tribunal pointed out that he did not provide this information previously he offered no comment.

118.   The applicant advised the Tribunal that he did not participate in any protest action in [City 1].  He said his course of study was very intensive and he had to concentrate on that.

119.   The applicant advised the Tribunal that he has attended two protest actions in Canberra at the Bangladesh Embassy in around 2016 and 2018.  He said the protests were organised by senior Jumma identities and he helped to write placards and raised his voice at the protests.  He said he has also been involved in religious activities and has attended some human rights conferences on global human rights issues in various countries. 

120.   The Tribunal put it to the applicant that based on his evidence it is difficult to accept he has a profile as a human rights activist.  He replied that because of ethnicity and religion his people are constantly suppressed and discriminated against.  He said the authorities may not make him a target of harassment or mistreatment, but he will certainly be persecuted by [Mr A].

121.   When asked if he has ever been a member of a political organisation, he said he has not but that he regards his protest action in [Country 1] as political.  He said it would be regarded as anti-government by the authorities in Bangladesh.

122.   When asked if he is still a member of [Organisation 2] he said it has been many years since he was involved and its hard for him to answer whether he is a member or not.  However, he said the organisation remains active and he keeps in contact with people from the organisation in the CHT.  He added that he is a member of a Jumma organisation in Australia.

123.   Regarding the stealth of his land, he said that upon his return to Bangladesh in 2013 he heard that many people were being harassed by Bengali people and that land grabbing was going on.  He said that communal violence flared and that in times of crisis the police side with the Bengali people.

124.   The applicant stated that [Mr A] wanted to establish a [business] and he required their land for that.  He said he went to Rangamati to get the land registered in his father’s name but along the way he was stopped by [Mr A] and his men.    He said he was threatened that he or members of his family would be killed if he attempted to register the land.  He said he was physically assaulted during the incident. 

125.   The applicant was asked several times if anything further occurred during that incident and he reiterated he was bashed and warned off registering the land.  He said that following that incident his father went missing.  He said he felt powerless and couldn’t do anything more to secure their land because [Mr A] has the support of the police. 

126.   The Tribunal put it to him that in his previous evidence he claimed he was disrobed by [Mr A] during that incident and asked why he failed to mention this.  He said he forgot to mention it because that sort of treatment is commonplace. 

127.   The Tribunal asked the applicant how he planned to get the land registered without any evidence of ownership.  He said that he was stopped on the way to the office and had to go back.  He said he was going to talk to a lawyer or some other person and follow the procedure for registration.   He added later that he obtained a certificate from a local member saying that his family had lived on the land for many years.

128.   The Tribunal put it to the applicant that in previous evidence he indicated that he attended the Land Register office and was told that he had to pay a bribe of 30,000 taka to register his land.  He said that he had taken some money with him on the day of the incident to pay a bribe, which is usual practice, but [Mr A] took it from him along with the certificate.  The Tribunal stated that nevertheless his earlier evidence indicates he actually reached the office of the Land Register.  The applicant replied that his oral evidence is what he recollects about the incident.

129.   The applicant was asked whether his family members in Bangladesh have made any further attempts to reclaim their land.  He replied that they are powerless to do so.  He said that [Mr A] would never allow that to happen.  In any event, he said he believes that the [business] has already been built.

130.   The applicant advised the Tribunal that if he returns to Bangladesh [Mr A] will assume that he will attempt to take possession of his family’s land.  The Tribunal queried why he would feel threatened by the applicant given his supposed power and connections.  He replied that he knows that taking back their land will be impossible, but he remains committed to seeking justice.   When asked why, given his observations that it would be fruitless, he said that his family has no other assets other than this land.

131.   When asked if he reported the assault by [Mr A] to the police the applicant replied that there was no use doing so as it would invite further trouble.  When asked why he bothered reporting his father’s disappearance to the police he said he had no choice but to do so.

132.   When asked if his family are being threatened by [Mr A] since they left their land he said that it was he and his father who presented the biggest threat and they are no longer there.  When asked if they had been approached by [Mr A], he said there was no need for him to approach his family members as he had already grabbed their land.

133.   The Tribunal put it to the applicant that he stated in a letter to the Department that his mother informed him that [Mr A] had been to their uncle’s house where his family had taken shelter to inquire about his whereabouts, He then agreed he had said that.  When asked why he didn’t mention it before he said he possibly did not understand the question.

134.   The applicant advised the Tribunal that other than the general diary report he has no other evidence to substantiate his claims. 

135.   The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain the claim raised in submissions that he will be harmed for seeking justice for the past harm suffered by his family.  He confirmed that he would seek justice for them and other Jumma people through his protest activities.

136.   The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he fears harm as a result of internal conflict among Jumma people or groups. He said that there is fighting between the different political groupings who represent Jumma people and its possible that members of one group or another may try to eliminate him.

137.   The applicant advised the Tribunal that he observes his Buddhist faith by attending religious functions and attending the temple.

138.   The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it might conclude that any harm he might face in the CHT due to race, religion or involvement in a land dispute would not exist in another part of Bangladesh and that it might be considered reasonable for him to relocate to avoid any harm in his local area.  The Tribunal pointed out that country information sources indicate that indigenous people do freely move to urban areas and that there are significant numbers of Buddhists living in Chittagong city and Dhaka where there are also Buddhist places of worship.  The Tribunal stated that despite the existence of some degree of discrimination it appears he may be able to live and work in another area of Bangladesh, particularly as he has lived abroad for many years.  The applicant responded that he is easily identifiable as an indigenous person due to his physical characteristics.  He stated that due to his past actions he will be identified wherever he goes and its possible he will be killed by [Mr A] or the Bangladesh authorities.  He also said that without a place to live he could not find a job.  He said that other indigenous people who were raised in different locations and have a place to live may manage it and find jobs, but people like him who have spent of their life abroad and have no connection with other regional areas would find it difficult.  He added that those that do live in other areas continue to be subjected to harassment and discrimination.

139.   Regarding his Buddhist religion the Tribunal put it to the applicant that it accepts there are reports of localised violence and attacks on religious minorities including Buddhists and Buddhist property from time to time, but that the information available doesn’t suggest that this occurs with such frequency or, is so widespread that it would give rise to there being a real chance of him suffering serious harm.  Further, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant information which indicates that when there have been serious problems the authorities have reportedly responded effectively and upped their presence in the affected areas and continue to provide protection during religious events. The Tribunal also stated that the current government does not appear to have any tolerance for the presence of Islamic extremists in the country. The applicant responded that the news reports are not correct.  He said that strong action is not taken against culprits who attack the Buddhist community.  He said that the influx of Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar has resulted in ongoing attacks on the Buddhist community.  He said the media do not publicise these attacks.

140.   The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it was concerned that he did not take the opportunity to apply for protection in [City 1] given his past experiences in Bangladesh.  The applicant responded that [City 1] is a colony of China.  He referred to China’s treatment of the Dalai Lama and said that there was no scope for him to seek protection in a country like that.

Post-hearing submissions to the Tribunal

141.   On 15 May 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to the requirements of s424A of the Act.  The Tribunal noted that it has consulted information sources (links to articles were included) which indicate that indigenous and religious minority rights activism occurs throughout Bangladesh, including in Dhaka, with many of the protests being large-scale and highly visible. The Tribunal informed the applicant that it considers the news reports are relevant as they do not indicate that the authorities caused trouble for the participants in these events and nor do they indicate that participants were subsequently arrested or mistreated by Bangladeshi authorities or others.  The Tribunal stated that if it relied on the information, it might conclude that it would be possible for the applicant to attend occasional human rights protests in Bangladesh without suffering any harm.  The applicant was invited to make any comments or responses to the information in writing by 29 May 2023.  The applicant subsequently requested an extension of time to reply until 5 June 2023 and the Tribunal granted the request.

142.   On 5 June 2023 the applicant’s representative made the following submissions to the Tribunal:

-Minority religious groups or those from ethnic/tribal backgrounds suffer the most severe restrictions, discrimination and attacks in Bangladesh.

-Bangladesh has been entrenched in authoritarian rule since 2008; the government is struggling to fight radical Islamic groups which are growing stronger in influence and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina appeared to be wooing conservative Islamic elements in her speech at a gathering of Madrassas in November 2018 by stating “Anyone who pronounces offensive comments against Islam or again the Prophet Muhammad, will be prosecuted according to the law”.  It is submitted that it remains to be seen how her government will walk this tightrope in the years to come.

-In an effort to consolidate and increase power, political parties have wooed radical Islamic groups by putting pressure on religious minorities including Buddhists as well as by stressing the special status of Islam.  Local political leaders are often involved in land issues which affect the Buddhist minority.  In the CHT, government officials act harshly against Buddhists and treat them unfairly especially when land issues are involved.   The army also treats ethnic minorities in this region with suspicion.

-A rising number of incidents involved mob violence against religious minorities including Buddhists has been reported, particularly in the CHT area.  Ordinary citizens perceive Buddhists from the CHT as socially undesirable and Buddhists are ostracised.  Members of ethnic minorities, many of them Buddhists, are watched and targeted by Rohingya due to ongoing violations against Muslims in Myanmar by Buddhist extremists. The CHT and the Myanmar – Bangladesh border region has become volatile following the sudden inflex of Muslim Rohingya refugees in 2017.

-Local radical Islamic groups are targeting the Buddhist minority.  A notable trend is the rise of Islamic State attacks in the country targeting primarily free thinkers and minority religious groups with the Hindu minority being a particular focus.

-Tribal Buddhists face an increasing double vulnerability and struggle with land-grabbing issues and violence.

-The right to peaceful protest has come under concerted attack and civil society members involved in protests are particularly targeted.  Anyone who participates in peaceful protests is at risk of facing serious harm in Bangladesh.  Though the country information mainly deals with attacks against political protests, there is evidence indicating that civil society members involved in protests face targeted attacks.  In December 2022 CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance, called on the Bangladesh government to halt its assault on the right to protest.  Attached is a news article in support of the latter (link illegible).

-The applicant will face serious harm in Bangladesh because he is from a Jumma ethnic and tribal background; he has and will involve himself in protests addressing human rights violations and abuses; he has a political opinion supporting Jumma and indigenous rights.

143.   Also attached are the following country information references in support of the applicant’s case:

-‘Bangladesh:  End Crackdown Against Journalists and Critics’, Human Rights Watch, May 3, 2023

-‘Bangladesh: Authorities must respect right to peaceful protest following bloody crackdowns’, Amnesty International March 26, 2021

-‘Bangladesh: Rising attacks on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly must be urgently stopped’, Amnesty International August 11, 2020

-‘7 Jum houses allegedly burnt by Bengali Settlers in Matiranga Tabalchari’, Hill Voice, June 2, 2023

-‘BD sees continued communal violence in 2022:  US report’ The Asian Age Online, 17 May 2023

-‘Rohingya crisis sparks fear among Bangladeshi Buddhists’, AFP, September 21, 2017

FINDINGS AND REASONS

Country of reference

144.   The applicant has produced a People’s Republic of Bangladesh passport which verifies his claimed identity and nationality.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a national of Bangladesh and has assessed his claims against Bangladesh.

Findings of Fact

Claimed ethnic identity and religion

145.   Based on the available evidence the Tribunal accepts the applicant is from [Village 1] in Rangamati province in the CHT area of Bangladesh and is of Tanchangya ethnicity.   The Tribunal also accepts the applicant is a Buddhist.

146.   The Tribunal accepts the applicant will likely wish to return to his home area in Rangamati if he is required to return to Bangladesh as this is where his mother and siblings remain living. 

147.   The Tribunal accepts the applicant will attend Buddhist temples for religious worship and participate in cultural and religious celebrations and occasions as an ordinary member of the Jumma and Buddhist communities.

Claimed whereabouts prior to coming to Australia

148.   The Tribunal accepts the applicant went to [Country 1] at a young age in either 2000 or 2001 where he completed his schooling and tertiary studies before returning to Bangladesh in February 2013.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant moved to [City 1] on [date] August 2013 to undertake further tertiary studies.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant arrived in Australia from [City 1] in May 2014.

Claimed protest activity outside of Bangladesh

149.   The Tribunal accepts, on the basis of the applicant’s testimony and supporting photographic evidence which depict his presence at demonstrations, that the applicant attended two prominent protests in [Country 1], calling for the respect of human rights of indigenous people in the CHT in Bangladesh prior to 2013.  The Tribunal is prepared to accept he may have attended some other small protests of this nature in [Country 1] during his years of residency there.   The Tribunal is also prepared to accept he may have signed a memorandum and been part of a group of demonstrators who handed over a memorandum to the Bangladesh Embassy in [Country 1] calling for an end to human rights violations of indigenous people and women in Bangladesh. The Tribunal is also prepared to accept the applicant has attended two protests against human rights violations of indigenous and religious minority persons in Bangladesh during his time in Australia.  The Tribunal finds based on the applicant’s testimony and supporting documentation that these protests occurred in either 2015 or 2017 and 2018.

Claimed membership of religious and/or Jumma organisations inside or outside of Bangladesh

150.   The applicant claims he joined the Buddhist organisation [Organisation 2] in [Country 1] in around 2006 or 2007.  While it was later claimed he was appointed as an executive member of [Organisation 2] and was actively involved in the organisation’s communication efforts with the media from 2010, the Tribunal is not persuaded his evidence supports this.  In his original statement of claims made on 19 July 2018, the applicant refers only to attending two protests in [Country 1] with the [Organisation 2].  He made no mention of being appointed to the executive committee until 18 December 2014, when he later submitted information to this effect to the Department.  The applicant was questioned about the [Organisation 2] and his role in the organisation during the Tribunal hearing.   He said the [Organisation 2] is primarily a Buddhist organisation, but it also has an interest in the rights of indigenous Buddhists in the CHT where its main office is located.  He said he attended peaceful protests organised by the [Organisation 2] in [Country 1].  He said he participated in the protests and helped to make placards and was involved in handing over a memorandum to Bangladesh Embassy staff in [Country 1].  Again, he made no mention of being a [Organisation 2] executive committee member and nor did he outline his promotional activities with the media. 

151.   The Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicant may have been an ordinary member of the [Organisation 2] in [Country 1].  However, the Tribunal is not persuaded, and does not accept, that he was an executive committee member of the [Organisation 2] or involved in communication or promotional activities with the media in [Country 1].    Based on his oral testimony, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has had no involvement with the [Organisation 2] for many years.  While it might be the case that he remains in personal contact with certain members of the [Organisation 2] in the CHT, there is no compelling evidence before the Tribunal to support that he will resume his membership of the [Organisation 2] in future.

152.   The applicant claims he is a member of [Organisation 3] of Australia and based on the available evidence the Tribunal accepts this.  He has not claimed to hold a leadership role within this organisation and based on his evidence, the Tribunal finds he is an ordinary member of that organisation.

The applicants claim to be a prominent activist

153.   It is claimed that the applicant has a prominent profile as an activist around issues related to indigenous persons and religious minority rights.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has an opinion which is supportive of the indigenous and Buddhist peoples of the CHT and their rights and is critical of the treatment of indigenous and Buddhist peoples in Bangladesh by authorities, Bengali settlers and others.  However,  the Tribunal does not accept that his sporadic involvement in a relatively small number of widely spaced protest activities as an ordinary participant means he has developed an activist profile.  Further, the Tribunal finds that based on the available evidence the applicant has never been a member of any indigenous political party or any indigenous or Buddhist organisation in Bangladesh nor did he engage in any activity in Bangladesh connected to an indigenous political party or any indigenous or Buddhist organisation.   Nor has he been involved with any indigenous or other political party outside of Bangladesh.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant holds the profile of an activist or that he is known to authorities or adversaries in Bangladesh for this reason.

Claimed interrogation at the airport in Bangladesh

154.   The applicant has consistently claimed that he was interrogated by authorities upon his arrival at the Bangladesh airport in February 2013.  He reasoned that this interrogation was due to his involvement in protests in [Country 1] and because he was a signatory on a memorandum addressed to the government which called for an end to human rights abuses against indigenous people and women in Bangladesh.   During the Tribunal hearing the applicant confirmed that he was not physically harmed during the interrogation but said he was warned about continuing his protest activity.  He also confirmed that he was not subjected to any further interrogation following this incident and that he managed to obtain a new passport albeit after paying a bribe to facilitate the process.  

155.   The claim that the applicant needed to pay a bribe to facilitate the grant of his passport was only introduced during the Tribunal hearing and given he was not subjected to any further scrutiny following the incident at the airport, the Tribunal considers if a bribe was requested it was more likely due to discriminatory treatment aimed at persons of indigenous background which reportedly does occur in Bangladesh rather than any attempt by the authorities to prevent him from obtaining a passport because of his activities in [Country 1]. 

156.   The Tribunal is prepared to accept the applicant was interrogated for several hours at the airport on his return back to Bangladesh and that this may have been in part due to his protest activity in [Country 1] shortly before his return to Bangladesh.   However, given he was not subjected to any further scrutiny or harassment following the airport incident the Tribunal considers he was not a person of continuing interest to the authorities from that point onwards. 

Claimed land dispute and problems with [Mr A]

157.   The Tribunal has concerns about the truthfulness of the applicant’s testimony in respect of the claimed land dispute with [Mr A]. 

158.   In his statutory declaration dated 19 July 2018, the applicant stated that upon his return to Bangladesh in 2013 he attempted to get the family’s land registered.  He stated he learnt that it would take 3 months to be registered and that he would be required to pay a 30,000 Taka bribe.  He further stated that as his family were poor it was taking longer to earn the money. During the interview with the Department, the applicant said that he attended the Land Register Commissioner who informed him personally that he had to bribe 30,000 Taka to register his land.

159.   On the contrary, during the Tribunal hearing the applicant stated that he went to Rangamati to get the land registered in his father’s name but along the way he was stopped by [Mr A] and his men, assaulted, threatened and forced the applicant to return home.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that his previous evidence indicated that he attended the Land Registry office and was told that he had to pay a bribe of 30,000 Taka to register his land.  He then said that he had taken some money with him on the day of the incident to pay a bribe, which is usual practice, but [Mr A] took it from him along with the certificate to prove his family’s ownership of the land.  As discussed with the applicant, this does not account for why his earlier evidence indicates he in fact physically attended the Land Registry office. The applicant stated that his oral evidence to the Tribunal is what he recollects about the incident.

160.   The applicant claimed in his statutory declaration and during his interview with the Department that in the course of the altercation with [Mr A] he was also disrobed of his Buddhist clothing.  The applicant failed to mention this during the Tribunal hearing despite being repeatedly asked whether anything further transpired during the claimed attack by [Mr A].  By way of response to the Tribunal’s concern about this, he said that he was disrobed but he forgot to mention it because this type of mistreatment is a common occurrence for Buddhists in Bangladesh.  Notwithstanding this claim, the Tribunal considers such an act would nevertheless be extremely confronting and personally significant to the applicant had it occurred.  His failure to mention this incident raises concerns for the Tribunal about the veracity of his claims in this respect.

161.   The applicant also claims that his mother and siblings were forced to relocate to live with his uncle when [Mr A] dispossessed them of their land.  In his statutory declaration of 19 July 2018, he claimed that he learnt his family moved to his uncle’s house after he had gone to [City 1].  During the hearing, he said that the move occurred about three weeks after his father’s disappearance and while he was still in Bangladesh.  When invited to respond to the Tribunal’s observation about his differing evidence in this respect, he again said that his oral evidence is his recollection of what occurred.

162.   Further, the applicant claimed in a letter to the Department dated 18 December 2014 that his mother informed him that [Mr A] had been to his uncle’s house where his family are sheltering to inquire about his whereabouts.  When asked during the Tribunal hearing if his family have or are being threatened by [Mr A] since they left the land, he said that it was he and his father who presented the biggest threat and they are no longer there.  When asked again if his family had been approached by [Mr A], he said there was no need for him to approach his family members as he had already grabbed their land.  When discussing the apparent differences between the two accounts with the applicant during the hearing, he then agreed he had said earlier that [Mr A] had been to see his family at his uncle’s house.  He said that what he had said earlier to the Tribunal was possibly due to him not understanding the question properly.

163.   The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s responses and acknowledges that the claimed incidents occurred around ten years ago.  The Tribunal accepts that minor details about the incident may have been forgotten over time.  However, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant would likely remember significant details about the events such as whether he physically attended the land registry office or not; whether he was disrobed of his Buddhist clothing during the altercation with [Mr A]; whether he was in the country or not at the time his mother and siblings were forced to relocate to his uncle’s home.  As to [Mr A]’s claimed interactions with his family members after their relocation to his uncle’s home, the Tribunal notes that the applicant was asked a series of questions during the hearing in an attempt to ascertain whether any of his family members had been threatened or even approached by [Mr A].  The Tribunal considers he gave a clear explanation as to why they had not been.  The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was confused about the Tribunal’s questions or misunderstood what was being asked of him.  The Tribunal considers his late acknowledgement of the evidence provided to the Department on 18 December 2014 and his claimed misunderstanding during the hearing was given in a bid to overcome the Tribunals concerns about his evidence.

164.   While the Tribunal accepts that land grabbing is a common problem in the CHT area, the cumulative effect of the abovementioned concerns is that the Tribunal has serious doubts about the veracity of the claims in the applicant’s case in respect of the dispute over his family’s land.  Consequently, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the land was appropriated unlawfully by [Mr A] in 2013; that the applicant was mistreated by [Mr A] following his bid to rectify the rightful ownership of his family’s land; that his family were forced to relocate to live with an uncle because their land was taken from them by [Mr A]; or that [Mr A] has an interest in locating the applicant or is making enquiries about his whereabouts.

Father’s death and disappearance

165.   The applicant has consistently claimed that his father was abducted on [date] June 2013 and is presumed dead.  He claims that his disappearance could have been orchestrated by [Mr A] due to the claimed land dispute and/or the army or the police due to his father’s active membership of Shantibahini, the armed wing of the PCJSS (Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samghati Samiti) a political association of the Jumma people of the CHT, both before and after the signing of the Peace Accord in 1998.   In support of his claim the applicant has produced a copy of a general diary police report lodged with the local police which accuses [Mr A] of abducting his father.

166.   The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant’s father may have disappeared in 2013 but for the reasons discussed above the Tribunal is not satisfied, despite what is claimed in the general diary report, that [Mr A] had a hand in the abduction of his father because of the claimed land dispute.  

167.   Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has consistently maintained that his father disappeared without a trace in 2013 and the Tribunal is prepared to accept this and that his political affiliations may have contributed to his disappearance. 

Claimed harm to other family members

168.   It is also claimed that other close family members of the applicant have suffered past harm over the years for reason of their race and religion including his mother being raped, and his grandfather assaulted by the army in 1996, and his elder sister being raped by Bengali boys on 15 July 2009.  Despite the lack of corroborating evidence, the Tribunal is prepared to accept the possibility that these events occurred as claimed given the conflict in the CHT prior to the Peace Accord and the ongoing presence of communal tensions and violence in the area. 

Is there a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm from the authorities on arrival in Bangladesh?

169.   It is claimed that the applicant will be labelled unpatriotic and harmed by the authorities on account of his public support for the rights of indigenous peoples and religious minorities while abroad and again interrogated by officials at the airport.

170.   The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant’s activities in [Country 1] may have contributed to him being questioned for several hours on return to Bangladesh in 2013, but notably he was released without harm and not subjected to further scrutiny at that time.   The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant has attended two public protests in support of the above groups in Australia, the last being in 2018. 

171.   The Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant’s past actions in [Country 1] prior to 2013 will remain of interest to the authorities some ten or more years later. Similarly the Tribunal considers his attendance as an ordinary participant at two protests in Australia, the last of which was five years ago, will not pose a risk that he will be identified as an unpatriotic person or an anti-government activist on return.  In forming this view the Tribunal has also had regard to DFAT’s latest report[22] which notes that Bangladesh is a country with a very large diaspora and a strong outward migration culture, and tens of thousands of Bangladeshi’s exit and enter the country for employment each year.  The government does not have the capacity or interest to check or monitor each of these people.  If they have a particular political profile, which the Tribunal considers the applicant does not, their entry into Bangladesh could be noted; however, this is unlikely for the vast majority of returning Bangladeshi’s and DFAT is not aware of any instances of returnees being detained at the country’s borders for overseas political activities. 

[22] Above n 1.

172.   Notwithstanding the above, given the length of time the applicant has spent living abroad and in light of reported anti-minority bias and corruption among government officials, the Tribunal cannot totally discount the likelihood of him being stopped and questioned about his movements by authorities on return to Bangladesh.  However, in the unlikely event this occurs the Tribunal is not persuaded the experience will be any different to that which occurred in 2013.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that questioning on arrival will result in him being arbitrarily detained or physically harmed or subjected to ongoing scrutiny by authorities. 

Is there a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to his local area in the CHT?

173.   The applicant claims, among other things, that his father’s murderers and [Mr A] will harm him if he returns to his local area. 

174.   As noted in the above findings the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s land was wrongfully appropriated by [Mr A] or that any of his family members have suffered harm as a result of this.  Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will be at risk of harm from [Mr A] if he returns to his local area.

175.   Regarding his father’s murder, the Tribunal accepts there may have been a political motive involved given his past membership of Shantibahini.  However, it is not claimed and nor is there any suggestion arising from the available evidence that the applicant has been or is involved with Shantibahini or any other political groupings himself.  While not without some doubts, given the strength of the documentary evidence presented, the Tribunal accepts the applicant may have filed a report with the local authorities about his father’s disappearance; but according to the applicant, the police failed to act on the report and there is no evidence to support that any investigations were ever conducted.  Indeed, the applicant stated during the hearing that he never expected such course of action.  In light of these circumstances, the Tribunal is not persuaded that his father’s murderers would have any cause to pursue or harm the applicant if he returns some ten years after the date of his father’s disappearance, particularly as the applicant himself claims no involvement with indigenous political groups in Bangladesh.

176.   In evidence given to the Department, the applicant claimed that he will be targeted on return by Somo Odhikar Andolon, a Bengali Settlers Organisation, because of his activities abroad.  The Tribunal considers the protest activities undertaken by the applicant abroad against the mistreatment of indigenous persons and Buddhists by Bengali people in the CHT have been sporadic and low level. The Tribunal is not persuaded that these actions will have attributed him a profile likely to cause him any harm by Bengali Settler Organisations and/or any other groupings if he returns home.

177.   The applicant has also claimed that if he returns to Bangladesh he will seek justice for the rape of his mother and sister and the abduction of his father.  Based on his evidence and demeanour during the hearing, the Tribunal accepts the applicant remains emotionally hurt by these incidents. However, when asked to elaborate on his future plans, he spoke only in general terms about the type of activism he would engage in on behalf of all indigenous persons and Buddhists in Bangladesh.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is planning any specific actions in relation to the past harm suffered by his family members and does not consider he will be at risk of harm in his home area for this reason.

178.   It has also been claimed that the applicant fears harm arising from internal conflict among Jumma people or groups.  During the hearing, the applicant agreed that there is fighting between the different political groupings who represent Jumma people and he claimed it is possible that members of one group or another may try to eliminate him.  The Tribunal considers the applicant provided only a vague and unconvincing account of his claims in this respect and notes that the claims are somewhat speculative.  Further, the applicant does not claim membership of or an interest in becoming a member of any Jumma political groupings in Bangladesh.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will be at risk of harm in his home area for this reason.

179.   Regarding the treatment of indigenous and Buddhist peoples generally in the CHT, the Tribunal acknowledges the applicant has consistently referred to the government’s failure to implement the Peace Accord, attacks on indigenous communities by the army and Bengali settlers, indigenous people fleeing their homes, burning of temples and homes and rape and murder of indigenous and Buddhist peoples.  The country information outlined above and provided in submissions to the Tribunal indeed indicates that the human rights of indigenous peoples in the CHT, particularly of women and those involved in land disputes, have and continue to be violated by non-state and state actors.  The information indicates that indigenous communities have been subjected to communal attacks by Bengali settlers.  Such attacks have involved the destruction, often by way of arson, and looting of indigenous homes and property as well as physical harm to indigenous people.  It has also been reported that law enforcement and security personnel have failed to intervene to prevent such attacks.  Indigenous places of worship such as Buddhist temples have also been subject to arson attacks by Muslim Bengalis.  Disputes over previously appropriated land have largely remained unresolved.  Instances of ‘land grabbing’ or land appropriation and eviction of indigenous people from their homes by Bengali settlers, by the authorities and by business entities continues to occur in the CHT.  Illegal land appropriation by Bengali settlers involving physical violence against indigenous people has reportedly occurred with the support of local police, authorities or military personnel who failed to prevent or respond to such acts.  Indigenous women and girls have reportedly been subjected to sexual violence in connection with incidents of land grabbing.   DFAT assesses that indigenous people in the CHT face a moderate risk of official discrimination: they are unable to move freely, to elect their own representatives, or to access justice in cases of land appropriation or physical violence.  They face a moderate risk of societal discrimination in the form of land appropriation and physical violence by settlers.[23]

[23] Above n 1 at 3.13.

180.   The Tribunal does not consider the applicant to be among those most vulnerable to the harm described above in the CHT, such as those involved in land disputes, high profile indigenous rights activists and indigenous women.  However, given the multitude of serious problems described above, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant as a member of an indigenous Buddhist community in the CHT would face future serious or significant harm if he returns to his local area in the CHT for reason of his race and religion. 

Is there a chance the applicant will suffer serious harm outside the CHT/Relocation?

181.   The Tribunal has proceeded to consider whether the applicant might reasonably relocate to another area within Bangladesh to avoid a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in the CHT. 

182.   The Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant’s family land in the CHT was wrongfully appropriated by [Mr A]. It follows that, the Tribunal does not accept he will take steps to reclaim the land on return to Bangladesh, and thereby, expose himself to future threats from [Mr A] or that he will be at risk of being located by [Mr A] in other parts of the country.  The Tribunal has also not accepted that the applicant is intending to take any specific actions to avenge the past harm suffered by his family members. It follows that, the Tribunal does not accept such actions will expose him to future harm for this reason wherever he may reside in Bangladesh.  As the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has a known profile as an indigenous or minority rights activist the Tribunal does not accept he will be targeted by Bengali settlers, the government or any other extremist forces anywhere in Bangladesh for his actions abroad. 

183.   The country information outlined above indicates that indigenous peoples from the CHT do migrate to other parts of Bangladesh, particularly to Chittagong city and Dhaka for a range of reasons. Further, it is noted that Buddhist communities are present in both these locations where there are also Buddhist monasteries and temples.   Sources consulted by the Tribunal indicate that in cities indigenous people sometimes experience discrimination and vilification particularly from non-state actors, such as people yelling insults at them in the street or people refusing to share food or drinks, cups, teapots or other utensils, or refusing to sit with them in waiting areas for example.  DFAT assesses that indigenous people who move to big cities experience a moderate risk of societal discrimination and official discrimination in the form of not being able to access government services in their language.[24]  The information does not indicate that indigenous peoples are denied the capacity to earn a livelihood or subsist outside of the CHT. 

[24] Above no 1 at 33—3.4, 3.9.

184.   Regarding the situation for Buddhists the information outlined above confirms they constitute a small minority in Bangladesh.  The sources indicate that despite some societal discrimination, in general, Buddhists are able to express and practice their faith throughout Bangladesh and there is little evidence to suggest that Buddhists in Bangladesh face state discrimination.  Large-scale communal violence is possible and the anti-Hindu violence in 2021 also affected some Buddhist temples.  Violence notably occurred in 2012 when Islamists razed Buddhist homes in the Cox’s Bazar district and temples after a false Facebook post implicated Buddhists in alleged desecration of a Quran. 

185.   As to the government’s response to violence aimed at religious minorities, DFAT’s 2019 report notes that following the 2012 incident in Cox’s Bazar the police mounted an effective response which prevented further violence and the government deployed additional police in the Buddhist areas in Cox’s Bazar to prevent a repeat of the Islamist protests that targeted Buddhists in 2012.[25]  Further, the 2022 UK Home Office report referenced above[26] similarly indicates that the Bangladeshi authorities have been shown to respond to outbreaks of violence, protect victims, investigate and convict those responsible for abuses against the largest religious minorities.

[25] Above n 11.

[26] Above n 15.

186.   DFAT suggests that anti-religious minority violence based on false accusations of blasphemy remains a possibility. DFAT assesses that Buddhists face a moderate risk of societal violence in the form of occasional localised incidents and a moderate risk of societal discrimination.[27]

[27] Above n 1 at 3.52.

187.   During the hearing, the Tribunal gave an overview of the country information summarised above and asked the applicant to comment on it. The applicant responded that he is easily identifiable as an indigenous person due to his physical characteristics. He stated that due to his past actions he will be identified wherever he goes and its possible he will be killed. He also said that without a place to live he could not find a job.  He added that other indigenous people who were raised in different locations and have a place to live may manage it and find jobs. but people like him who have spent their life abroad and have no connection with other regional areas would find it difficult.  He added that those that do live in other areas continue to be subjected to harassment and discrimination. 

188.   Regarding his Buddhist religion, the Tribunal put it to the applicant that it accepts there are reports of localised violence and attacks on religious minorities including Buddhists and Buddhist property from time to time, but that the information available doesn’t suggest that this occurs with such frequency or is so widespread that it would give rise to there being a real chance of him suffering serious harm.  Further, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant information which indicates that when there have been serious problems the authorities have reportedly responded effectively and upped their presence in the affected areas and continue to provide protection during religious events. The Tribunal also stated that the current government does not appear to have any tolerance for the presence of Islamic extremists in the country. The applicant responded that the news reports are not correct.  He said that strong action is not taken against culprits who attack the Buddhist community.  He said that the influx of Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar has resulted in ongoing attacks on the Buddhist community.  He said the media do not publicise these attacks.

189.   The Tribunal accepts that the applicant would be physically identifiable throughout Bangladesh as an indigenous person and either presumed to be a Buddhist for this reason or observed to be a Buddhist through his attendance at Buddhist temples and/or festivities and celebrations.  The Tribunal accepts he may encounter discrimination and harassment as an indigenous Buddhist in an urban area like Dhaka, but it considers he will nevertheless be able to practice his religion. Based on independent country information, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any societal discrimination he might experience for reason of his race or religion would rise to the level of serious harm or amount to significant harm. 

190.   The Tribunal also accepts there have been and likely will continue to be from time-to-time instances of violence against Buddhists, including in areas outside of the CHT, instigated by opportunistic elements intent on land grabbing as well as Islamic extremists and possibly elements of the Rohingya population.  However, the country information by and large satisfies the Tribunal that these incidents are occasional and localised and do not occur so frequently or are so widespread as to give rise to a real chance or a real risk the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm in an urban area such as Dhaka. 

191.   The Tribunal accepts that the country has recorded incidents of terrorist attacks committed by Islamic extremists including against religious minority groups.  However, contrary to the submissions made in respect of the rise of extremism, including in the wake of recent developments in Afghanistan, and the government’s wooing of Islamic groups for political gain, the Tribunal remains of the view that country information reports indicate that the government does not condone religious based societal violence and when required to it has conducted extensive operations against perpetrators of such violence which has significantly reduced the capability of such groups.  The Tribunal accepts the presence of Islamic extremist groups in Bangladesh but does not accept that Islamic extremists operate with impunity and considers such elements are at risk of arrest by the authorities and that the authorities have taken steps to prevent violence in relation to the Rohingya issue. 

192.   While the Tribunal does not believe the applicant has a profile as either an indigenous or minority rights activist, it does accept he has opinions supportive of the indigenous and Buddhist peoples of the CHT and their rights, and that he is critical of the treatment of indigenous and Buddhist peoples in Bangladesh by authorities, Bengali settlers and others. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that he may wish to continue to express those opinions in the manner in which he has done in the past, namely by attending the occasional peaceful protest action and association with Jumma organisations, albeit as an ordinary member at best.  As discussed with the applicant in a letter sent to him post hearing on 15 May 2023, the Tribunal considers country information sources it has consulted[28] indicate that indigenous and religious minority rights activism occurs throughout Bangladesh, including in Dhaka, with many of the protests being large-scale and highly visible. The Tribunal considers the sources do not indicate that the authorities caused trouble for the participants in these events and nor do they indicate that participants were subsequently arrested or mistreated by Bangladeshi authorities or others. 

193.   On 5 June 2023, the date agreed upon for the applicant to provide his comments or responses to the abovementioned information, the applicant’s representative provided a submission to the Tribunal addressing a range of issues.  While not specifically referring to the issues raised in the Tribunal’s letter of 15 May 2023, the representative relevantly submitted that the right to peaceful protest has come under concerted attack and civil society members involved in protests are particularly targeted in Bangladesh.  It is argued that anyone who participates in peaceful protests is at risk of facing serious harm in Bangladesh.  It is acknowledged that the country information mainly deals with attacks against political protests, however, it is argued that there is evidence indicating that civil society members involved in protests face targeted attacks.  For example, in December 2022, CIVICUS, a global civil society alliance, called on the Bangladesh government to halt its assault on the right to protest.  Attached is a news article in support of the latter (link illegible).  The Tribunal received no further response to its letter of 15 May 2023.

194.   The Tribunal has considered the response and the country information referred to, but remains of the view that the country information sources overall support that the applicant will be able to express his opinions in relation to the rights of indigenous and/or Buddhist persons, commensurate with his degree of interest and motivation, with no real chance or no real risk of suffering serious or significant harm from state or non-state actors outside of the CHT in an urban area such as Dhaka.  The Tribunal finds the applicant does not have any greater political or other motivations that he would have to refrain from acting on only for reason of avoiding harm.

195.   Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is not a real chance or a real risk that the applicant will be subjected to harm from state or non-state actors in an urban area outside of the CHT, such as Dhaka, due to his race, ethnicity, Buddhist religion, actual or imputed political opinion, and/or membership of any particular social group.

196.   During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant whether it would be reasonable for him to relocate from the CHT to an urban area, such as Dhaka, where he would not face a real chance or real risk of serious or significant harm. The applicant argued that he would not be able to find accommodation or employment and that he has no connection with other regional areas in Bangladesh.

197.   The Tribunal notes the applicant’s responses but considers he would have the ability to adapt and live in an urban area outside of the CHT, irrespective of his lack of connections in other areas of the country. The Tribunal accepts that Bengali is not the applicant’s first language and that his proficiency in the language is not akin to native born speakers.  However, he participated in a lengthy Tribunal hearing in which he only spoke Bengali. The Tribunal is satisfied he has an adequate ability to speak Bengali and that his level of proficiency in the Bengali language will not preclude him finding work or accessing services in an urban area such as Dhaka.  Additionally, the applicant is tertiary educated, speaks English, has lived independently of his family in three countries for much of his life, and he has demonstrated an ability to find work to support himself.  Whereas it is claimed he has no connection with other regional areas in Bangladesh, the Tribunal considers he has little remaining connection to his home area having lived away from it for most of his adult life.    Taking these factors into consideration, the Tribunal does not consider it would be unreasonable for the applicant to relocate from the CHT to an urban area such as Dhaka.

198.   The Tribunal is satisfied that there is not a real chance or a real risk the applicant would face serious or significant harm in Bangladesh outside the CHT and that it would be reasonable for him to relocate to an area, such as Dhaka, in order to avoid serious or significant harm he might face in his home area in the CHT.

[28] Buddhistdoor, ‘Protestors Rally in Bangladesh Over Alleged Sexual Assault of Sisters from Minority Buddhist Community’ (online 27 February 2018)  < The Third Pole, ‘Indigenous people in Bangladesh oppose resort on ancestral land’ (online 16 April 2021) < Hill Voice, ‘Human chain of Adivasi Chatra Sangram Parishad in Dhaka to protest cutting of Khasia Punji trees’ (online 10 March 2023) < The New Indian Express, ‘Assault on Buddhist Chakmas: Hindu federation slams attacks on minorities in Bangladesh’ (online 26 October 2021) < Al Jazeera, ‘Hundreds protest in Bangladesh over deadly religious violence’ (online 19 October 2021) < Buddhistdoor, ‘Minorities in Bangladesh Protest against Oppression across the Country’ (online 13 November 2020) < The Tribune India, ‘Protesters seek law for Bangladesh minorities’ (online 21 October 2021) < Commonwealth Union, ‘Bangladeshi indigenous peoples march for their rights!’ (online 20 May 2022) < UCA News, ‘Eco-tourism spells doom for Bangladesh tribal villagers’ (online 27 April 2022) <  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).

1. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa).  For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a real risk the applicant will face significant harm if he returns to his home area in the CHT.  However, for the same reasons articulated above, the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an urban area of Bangladesh outside the CHT, such as Dhaka, where there would not be a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.  Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Bangladesh, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

2. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).

   DECISION

202.   The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Tania Flood
Member